Automatic updates
I agree, Rokytnji, the testing is usually enough but all depends on the builder and problems we could not even imagine yet will appear. Here is one more:
If I decide to remove/add programs, change the WM and remaster TharPup 6.0. Then upload it as TharPup-Best-Edition-Ever keeping the quick pet fixes from 666philb for TharPup 6.0 active and available for automatic update, then the user has big problem with auto updates and negative experience with Puppy.
Automatic notification update could be good for mainstream linux but not as included option for so many Puppy versions (most of them simple remaster of other version).
If I decide to remove/add programs, change the WM and remaster TharPup 6.0. Then upload it as TharPup-Best-Edition-Ever keeping the quick pet fixes from 666philb for TharPup 6.0 active and available for automatic update, then the user has big problem with auto updates and negative experience with Puppy.
Automatic notification update could be good for mainstream linux but not as included option for so many Puppy versions (most of them simple remaster of other version).
Let me repeat for the Nth time... The update mechanism checks with ibiblio.org/puppylinux/ for possible updates. Not every puppy "remasterer" has access to it. AAMOF only BK and people building "official" puppies have access (mind you, not woof-CE participants).saintless wrote: Automatic notification update could be good for mainstream linux but not as included option for so many Puppy versions (most of them simple remaster of other version).
So please get your facts straight.
As I said before the mechanism is in place for 2 years now. Many remasters came and went. Still no sign of abuse.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==
There is a first time for everything.
Does not make sense till it happens, till every future puppy includes hidden system breaking risk. Especially with your suggestion - option the user to configure it to do the updates automatically without confirmation.
Even official service pack can become a problem, because the developers do not have information what is installed/changed inside save file from the user and how this service pack could affect it.
Included or not at least add second recommendation message to back up the save file before updating.
Edit: Oops... Here is the first time
Does not make sense till it happens, till every future puppy includes hidden system breaking risk. Especially with your suggestion - option the user to configure it to do the updates automatically without confirmation.
Even official service pack can become a problem, because the developers do not have information what is installed/changed inside save file from the user and how this service pack could affect it.
Included or not at least add second recommendation message to back up the save file before updating.
Edit: Oops... Here is the first time
- perdido
- Posts: 1528
- Joined: Mon 09 Dec 2013, 16:29
- Location: ¿Altair IV , Just north of Eeyore Junction.?
Are you suggesting that the "official puppy" builder has a mechanism in place to prevent a remastered version of his/her "official puppy" from checking for an update? Or that part of the mechanism that allows for updates does distinguish between "official puppy" and "remastered official puppy" and handles each differently?mavrothal wrote:Let me repeat for the Nth time... The update mechanism checks with ibiblio.org/puppylinux/ for possible updates. Not every puppy "remasterer" has access to it. AAMOF only BK and people building "official" puppies have access (mind you, not woof-CE participants).saintless wrote: Automatic notification update could be good for mainstream linux but not as included option for so many Puppy versions (most of them simple remaster of other version).
So please get your facts straight.
As I said before the mechanism is in place for 2 years now. Many remasters came and went. Still no sign of abuse.
.
saintless wrote:There is a first time for everything.
Does not make sense till it happens, till every future puppy includes hidden system breaking risk. Especially with your suggestion - option the user to configure it to do the updates automatically without confirmation.
Even official service pack can become a problem, because the developers do not have information what is installed/changed inside save file from the user and how this service pack could affect it.
Included or not at least add second recommendation message to back up the save file before updating.
This can go on for ever. I really do not have the time.
You started form "this is a disaster" (system update is something every distro has. apt-get does exactly that...) to "what if it was an elephant" to "but you said you may expand it" to ... what next.
Please just tell us to use your debian-spin and leave it there. You are not gaining any points/users by trying to shoot down others, specially with wild and unsubstantiated assumptions.
It is clear that some people think this option is a good idea and some they do not want to have the option to deside for thenselves. To me will never make scene why someone does not want to have the option to be informed but I do not really intend to spend any more time contemplating it.
Are we reading the same thing? It actually says that was not the update that generated the problem!saintless wrote:Edit: Oops... Here is the first time
PS: I do not intend to go on on this any longer. It is what it is...
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==
I can't remember writing here anything about my debian-spin. If you have a problem with it use the debian-spin thread to share it.mavrothal wrote:Please just tell us to use your debian-spin and leave it there. You are not gaining any points/users by trying to shoot down others, specially with wild and unsubstantiated assumptions.
apt-get update options are exactly the opposite to your suggestion - the user has control what to install and description of each package.
Now I doubt we are reading or speaking the same language. I guess you think uninstalling the update reverse back the previous state before the update was installed? Yes it is like that in debian-spin. Not in Puppy.Are we reading the same thing? It actually says that was not the update that generated the problem!
Done.PS: I do not intend to go on on this any longer. It is what it is...
I had the just same thought in Japanese Facebook group. I added a YES vote.
I think that the implementation of the function should be able to advance.
I think that it is necessary to build the environment where Puppy can tolerate for unknown security issues.
I think that the implementation of the function should be able to advance.
I think that it is necessary to build the environment where Puppy can tolerate for unknown security issues.
[b]BALLOON a.k.a. Fu-sen.[/b] from Japan | ãµã†ã›ã‚“ Fu-sen. (old: 2 8 6)
Automatic updates
To be able to click a button and see what updates your OS needs is very convenient and it would save the user (especially new user) from searching the forum security section for updates and I would vote yes to this.
To download automatically I'll vote no like another user already mentioned because of problems I had with Ubuntu (almost had to toss the HD)
The manual check would be very helpful to a new user with an old computer because the OS needed would not be the latest and need updates (heartbleed, shellshock, wget). This would also help the helper who wouldn't have to gather all the links to the updates when helping a newcomer and just say here's your OS and don't forget to check the update button for three updates.
Speaking of which is there a place where we could direct someone with all the updates for each OS. For example we tell the newcomer here is a link of all the updates for Precise, Wary, Lucid etc. until we get an update button.
Thanks
Bird Dog
To download automatically I'll vote no like another user already mentioned because of problems I had with Ubuntu (almost had to toss the HD)
The manual check would be very helpful to a new user with an old computer because the OS needed would not be the latest and need updates (heartbleed, shellshock, wget). This would also help the helper who wouldn't have to gather all the links to the updates when helping a newcomer and just say here's your OS and don't forget to check the update button for three updates.
Speaking of which is there a place where we could direct someone with all the updates for each OS. For example we tell the newcomer here is a link of all the updates for Precise, Wary, Lucid etc. until we get an update button.
Thanks
Bird Dog
Re: Automatic updates
The manual user-authorized check for updates wants to be an improvement for new puppies. It can be "dangerous" or not depending on its use. For old puppies I think it would be a hard work to collect all the possible security and not-only-security updates in repositories. Someone use a puppy to just get online without security needs, others want to secure login to the online bank. It depends on your needs what might be installed in your puppy.Bird Dog wrote: Speaking of which is there a place where we could direct someone with all the updates for each OS. For example we tell the newcomer here is a link of all the updates for Precise, Wary, Lucid etc. until we get an update button.
Hi all...
I voted no mainly because of my experiences with other distributions that have this feature, usually with update windows popping up every single session wanting me to update or upgrade. This will happen even if I set the updater to check only weekly.
Regards...
I voted no mainly because of my experiences with other distributions that have this feature, usually with update windows popping up every single session wanting me to update or upgrade. This will happen even if I set the updater to check only weekly.
Regards...
Our Lord and Savior [url=http://peacewithgod.jesus.net/]Jesus Christ[/url] loves and cares about you most of all!
PLEASE READ! You don't have to end up [url=http://www.spiritlessons.com/Documents/BillWiese_23MinutesInHell_Text.htm]here![/url]
PLEASE READ! You don't have to end up [url=http://www.spiritlessons.com/Documents/BillWiese_23MinutesInHell_Text.htm]here![/url]
But the proposed feature leaves it up to the user if the automatic check will be activated. And can be deactivated at a latter point too.ardvark wrote: I voted no mainly because of my experiences with other distributions that have this feature, usually with update windows popping up every single session wanting me to update or upgrade. This will happen even if I set the updater to check only weekly.
So what is the fear if this feature is included? Not to be able to resist activating it?...
BTW I hope you all have updated to wget 1.16 as all previous versions can be avenues of compromise if you visit a malicious site.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==
My concern would be how such a feature is implemented. If it's strictly a manual check that the user initiates and there is complete writeup about the offered update and any reported side affects and breakages, then I might be inclined to support it. I really don't want to see how this whole procedure is handled in Windows and Ubuntu, as examples, ported over to Puppy.mavrothal wrote:So what is the fear if this feature is included? Not to be able to resist activating it?....
Thank you for the heads up concerning wget, however I am unable to find 1.16 in a .deb at the moment.
Regards...
- ASRI éducation
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Sat 09 May 2009, 12:10
- Location: France
- Contact:
I agree with mavrothal.mavrothal wrote:But the proposed feature leaves it up to the user if the automatic check will be activated. And can be deactivated at a latter point too.
So what is the fear if this feature is included? Not to be able to resist activating it?...
BTW I hope you all have updated to wget 1.16 as all previous versions can be avenues of compromise if you visit a malicious site.
If the utility update allows the user to:
- choose the updates to installed
- view information concerning the proposed updates
Regards
Projet ASRI éducation => [url=http://asri-education.org/]Association[/url] | [url=http://forum.asri-education.org/]Forum[/url] | [url=http://dl01.asri-education.org/]Dépôt[/url] | [url=http://kids.asri-education.org/]Espace kids[/url]
Distros also provide patched version of older wget versions. Check your updatesardvark wrote:Thank you for the heads up concerning wget, however I am unable to find 1.16 in a .deb at the moment.
BTW is not necessary that visiting legitimate site only can protect you since as many as 12 million sites might be compromised
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==
Thank you and done, looks like I got the patched version.mavrothal wrote:Check your updates
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates. What I am opposed to is it running automatically with no or little user control. Plus, it needs to give a fully explanation of what each patch does and any reported side effects and breakages so the user can decide if he or she wants it.
Regards...
- neerajkolte
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Mon 10 Feb 2014, 07:05
- Location: Pune, India.
My thoughts exactly.ardvark wrote:I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates. What I am opposed to is it running automatically with no or little user control. Plus, it needs to give a fully explanation of what each patch does and any reported side effects and breakages so the user can decide if he or she wants it.
Thanks.
- Neeraj.
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson
“We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.â€
- Amara’s Law.
- Ken Thompson
“We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.â€
- Amara’s Law.
But this is NOT about downloading and much more installing anything!!!ardvark wrote: I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates.
This is only about automatically letting the user know that an update exists.
What the users does with this information is its own business. (s)he may choose "blindly" to download and update or check the forum to see what is it about before (s)he download and install or just ignore it.
Regarding the nature of the update itself is up to the developer what information may or may not provide about it in advance, ie before you download or before you install.
Currently, BK that is using service_pack, and 666philb that is using quickpet "tahr bug fix", provide information about the content of the update only in the forum and after you install the update.
But again you are not talking about "automatic updates" here, we are talking about "automatic information about available updates".
That is why I' keep being surprised that people "do not want to know"!
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==
Show me a distro other than Windows that does that without user intervention.I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates. What I am opposed to is it running automatically with no or little user control.
I have not seen that feature in Slackware, Debian, Arch, Ubuntu, etc......
I know Windows has that feature. But you have to set that up that way with
Express install, Don't tell me.
Usually voting No means opposed in my neighborhood.
I voted Yes. Because common sense dictates it.